| 1 |
For first implementation, my vote is for #2. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Of course I would have to agree with the common consensus that this |
| 4 |
alone would inevitably increase (at least slightly) the level of QA. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It would also provide a nice vantage point for further moving in the |
| 7 |
direction of option #1. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
- Michael |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On Tuesday, February 3, 2004, at 03:36 PM, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> All -- |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question that has |
| 16 |
> come up |
| 17 |
> recently. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement |
| 20 |
> -- |
| 21 |
> we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA |
| 22 |
> for |
| 23 |
> the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid |
| 24 |
> and |
| 25 |
> dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise |
| 26 |
> environments. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> If you were given the choice between: |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
| 31 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 32 |
> * only updated quarterly |
| 33 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to |
| 34 |
> the |
| 35 |
> tree |
| 36 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> --kurt |
| 41 |
> <mime-attachment> |
Archives